MASTER 

GA  TIVE 
NO.  91-80229-12 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  ~  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


AN 


'%/-  s 


;^-  '-^, 


-^         ,-j^ ^  JRL..«^     ^ 


■"*><. 


•1. 


■a  ~.  .     .  vT» 


-W 


I 


*4 


/* 


CO 


-A*       # 


18 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


COLUMBIA  UNIVEI^ITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  U 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TARHFT 


Original  Material  as  Fihned  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


"UnTtbWidtd    political     powtr     in  +Kt 
Wands     of    Rornan     catKolics,    sublersive     of  +K 
3t\V\sK     consf'iTjrion^    -it^   cnurcK    and    slah 
^nco-rnpsTilile.    w'l^K    4nt    txis+nnce.    of    uvi| 
rtVio'^Qos     libtrfq-     bq  O  Gandid 


and 
or 


^5     i^M 
I.    *    3^0.' 


ius. 


A'o.  1^    ©ya  voTuinc  orpampfilct*. 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

FILM     SIZE: ^-^T^*!^      __  REDUCTION     RATIO: 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  QI^    IB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED: J?V_^i5_/___     INITIALS j/'J^'J^^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC   WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


//x 


K- 


C 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2         3 


Mil 


iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiinHMi 


rTT 


4         5         6         7        8         9        10       11       12       13       14 

iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiJ 


15    mm 


^M 


I  I  I 


TTT 


JTTTl 


M] 


Inches 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


1^ 

1^ 

2.8 

2.5 

1^ 

|a2 

2.2 

■  63 

|7I 

3.6           "" 

■  40 

2.0 

u 

•-      u 

liikk 

1.8 

III 

1.4 

1.6 

-I '3 


-.VJ 


MnNUFnCTURED   TO   RUM   STflNDflRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMAGE.     INC. 


UNRESTRICTED 

IN  THE  HANDS  OF 

ROMAN  CATHOLICS, 

SUBFERSIFE 


OF  THE 


Uvitip^  Constttutidn, 


IN  CHURCH  AND  STATE ; 


AND 


INCOMPATIBLE   WITH    THE   EXISTENCE 


OP 


CIVIL  OR  RELIGIOUS  LIBERTY. 


BY    CANDIDUS. 


Cork: 

PRINTED  AND  SOLD  BY  RICHARD  TIVY,  BOOKSELLER, 

NO.  i,  ST.   PATRICK-STREET. 

1819. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  DANGER 


OP 


(anrestrWetJ  politttal  pctoer. 


IN  THE  HANDS  OF 


©(DUiiSr  (Bii^IIl(DM®^ 


TffESE  Letters  Jirst  appeared  in  the  Dublin  Corres" 
pondentof  I6th.  March,  and 5th  Inst,  addressed  to  the 
Editor  of  that  Paper  ;  and  having  excited  an  extraor* 
dinary  degree  of  interest,  are  now  published  in  the 
present  form,  in  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  several 
respectable  Gentlemen,  desirous  of  submitting  them  ttt 
the  serious  consideration  of  the  British  Legislature* 

Cork,  April  16,  1819. 


TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  DUBLIN  CORRESPONDENT. 

SIR, 

As  the  general  importance  of  the  Catholic  Question, 
and  the  anticipated  Parliamentarj  discussion  of  its 
merits,  cannot  fail  to  interest  every  lover  of  his  country, 
1  have  taken  the  liberty  of  addressing  you  on  the  sub- 
ject — not  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  a  feeling  of  unde- 
served irritation  against  a  large  proportion  of  my  fellow 
i  .  subjects,  but,  that  1  might  lay  before  the  public,  what 

1  conceive  to  be  just  reasons  for  opposing  that  pretend- 
ed or  mistaken  liberality,  which,  in  the  exercise  of  a 
zeal  more  fervent  than  wise,  would  subvert  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Constitution,  by  the  unguarded  concessions 
of  unqualified  Emancipation.  The  subject,  I  know, 
has  been  already  exhibited  in  almost  every  point  of 
view,  through  the  medium  of  the  public  journals;  but, 
in  general,  those  who  have  been  engaged  in  the  contro- 

a2 


& 


versyon  that  side  of  the  question  which  I  mean  to  take 
up,   have  been,  from  their  official  situations,   or  their 
circumstances  in  life,  char<?ed  with  interested  views,  or 
groundless  prejudices,  and,  thoui^h  their  motives  might 
have  been  ot  the  purest  kind,  jct,   because  they  were 
Placemen  or  Pensioners,  or  Members  ot  the  Established 
Church,  or  in  some  wa^  or  other,  near  or  remote,  con- 
nected with  such,   the  charge,  though  disclaimed,  has 
still  been  reiterated—^you  are  prejudiced  or  interested, 
or  both  ;  and,  therefore,  incapable  of  taking  an  impartial 
view  of  the  subject.      But,  as  a  Protestant  Dissenter^ 
labouring  under  the  disabilities  of  which  the  Catholics 
complain,  1  have  flattered  myseU,  that  1  may  be  able  to 
obtain  a  more  patient  and  candid   hearing  than  those 
who  may  be  considered  judges  in  their  own  cause  ;  and, 
ibr  this  reason,  1  have  presumed  to  intrude  upon  your 
readers,  begging   leave  to  obserre,  that  1  am  as  indc- 
pendent  of  the  influence  of  Government,  as  1  am  decided 
in  my  dissent  from  tht>  Established  Church,     Of  Min- 
isters, or  their  Agents,  1  know  nothing.     1  have  never 
been  honoured  by  their  acquaintance,  nor  enriched  by 
their  places  or  pepsions.     My  religious  sentiments  will 
Dot   allow  me  to  form  a  religious  connexion  with    the 
Sfat(»,  and  the  political  disabilities  of  a  Dissenter  will 
prevent  me  from  forming  a  political  one.     1  am  neither 
encouraged  by  hope,  nor  intimidated  by  fear  ;  so  (hat, 
if]  di'£er  from  any  on  the  sul^ect  before  me,  1  think  in 
doing  so,  1  am  entitled  to  the  credit  of  the  purest  con- 
viction . 


That  I  may  communicate  my  ideas  with  the  greater 
precision  on  a  question  of  so  much  importance,  1  shall 
briefly  direct  your  attention  to  two  or  three  great  prin- 
ciples of  good  government,  and  inquire,  whether  they  do 
not  fully  warrant  a  refusal  of  the  claims  of  Roman  €)«'• 
tholics.  1  he  first  principle  is,  that  no  subject  shouliI 

BE  MADE  to  LABOR  UNDER  ANY  CIVIL  DISABILITIES, 
ON  ACCOUNT  OF  HIS  RCI^IGIOUS  SENTIMENTS,  HOW- 
EVER ABSURD  OR  ERRONEOUS  THESE  SENTIMENTS 
MAY  BE,  PROVIDED  THAT  SCCH  SENTIMENTS  ARt 
EXCLUSIVELY   RELIGIOUS. 

1  presume,  that  every  Catholic,  and  every  advocate 
for  the  Emancipation  of  Catholics,  will  admit  the  truth 
of  thLs  principle,  as  it  is  the  foundation  of  all  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  urged  in  favor  of  that  measure  ; 
but  I  hope  to  be  able  to  prove  that  Catholic  Emancipa- 
tion does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  most  unqualified 
admission  of  this  valuable  political  axiom. 

In  considering  (he  nature  ot  (his  important  principle. 

we  should  ascertain  precisely  what  religious  sentimenU 
are.  They  arc  the  judgments  which  we  form  of  spiritual 
things,  as  these  stand  connected  with  God  and  eternity. 

Mow,  if  any  subject  of  a  State  should  be  placed  under 
civil  disabilities,  on  account  of  such  sentiments,  how- 
ever ridiculous  they  may  be,  1  should  view  his  case  as  aa 
instance  of  political  injustice  and   religious  persecution. 

With  religious  sentiments,  in  this  restricted  form,  no 
State  has  a  right  to  interfere,  either  directly,  or  indi<. 


'fa  j\g  - 


redly;  because  such  sentimenti  relate  exclusively  to 
God  and  eternal  things,  the  utmost  limits  of  sentiment 
purely  religious. 

But  there  is  another  way  of  viewing  religious  senti- 
ments. They  may  be  viewed  as  the  judirmtnls  which  we 
form  respecting  the  connexion  (hat  subsists  between  spiri- 
tual and  eternal  things  and  our  outward  conduct.  In  this 
point  of  view  our  sentiments  cease  to  be  purely  lelji^ious 
and  immediately  become  the  subject  ot  Stale  cognizance 
because  they  may  interfere  with  the  frame  of  society, 
and  the  economy  of  the  body  politic.  Should  it  be 
found,  on  inquiry,  thai,  according  to  the  last  and  widest 
sense  of  the  phrase,  the  religious  sentiments  of  an  indi- 
vidual  do  not  interfere  with  the  frame  of  society,  or  the 
economy  of  the  body  politic  ;  disabilities,  in  that  case, 
would  prove  as  decided  a  mark  of  injustice  and  perse- 
cution, as  in  the  instance  formerly  adverted  to.  But, 
on  the  contrary,  should  the  result  of  inquiry  prove, 
that  the  religious  sentiments  t>f  any  individual  embrace 
principles  detrimental  to  the  frame  of  society,  or  the 
economy  of  the  body  politic,  it  is  the  imperative  duty 
of  the  state  to  lay  him  under  such  civil  disabilities,  as 
will  prevent  his  principles  from  operating  to  the  injury 
of  the  community :  such  disabilities  cannot,  without 
the  greatest  perversion  of  words,  be  denominated  perse- 
cution, either  civil  or  religious.— The  last  is  the  case  of 
the  Catholics.  They  labour  under  disabilities,  not  be- 
cause  they  hold  certain  sentiments,   purely   religious 


i 


according  to  the  strictest  acceptation  of  the  phrase— nor, 
because  they  hold  sentiments  of  a  more  mixed  character, 
according  to  its  wider  acceptation  ;  but,  because  they 
hold  sentiments  which  militate  against  the  consti- 
tutional POLITICS  OF  the  empire.  If  this  be 
proved,  the  cry  of  religious  persecution,  so  often  raised 
in  connexion  with  the  Catholic  Question,  must  be  view- 
ed as  the  offspring  of  iajnorance,  or  as  an  artful  attempt 
to  give  the  sacred  name  of  religion  to  a  cause  that  dare* 
not  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  sound  and  enlightened 
policy,  without  endeavouring,  by  unlawful  means,  to 
bias  its  Judges  in  its  favour. 

I  have  said,  that  the  Catholic  labours  under  disabi* 
lities,  because  his  religious  sentiments  militate  against 
the  principles  of  the  Constitution ;  and,  I  think,  the 
truth  of  the  assertion  is  capable  of  the  clearest  demon- 
stration.— The  Church,  established  by  law,  is  a  part  of 
the  Constitution  ;  and,  though  the  Catholics  profess  to 
have  no  intention  of  overturning'  it,  yeiy  I  must  remind 
them,  that  their  profession  is  flatly  contradicted  by 
their  religious  principles.  With  regard  to  other  reli- 
gious systems,  the  uniform  language  of  all  the  standard 
documents  ot  the  Catholic  Church  is — anathema.  Its 
Hierarchy,  its  Government,  its  Discipline,  its  Creeds, 
are  all  founded  on  the  same  common  principle  of  exclu- 
sive intolerance.  From  the  Vatican  of  Rome  to  the 
meanest  cabin  in  Ireland,  one  Church  is  the  watch-word 
of  Catholicity. — Catholics  cannot  consistently  acknow- 


ledge  any  other;  nor  arc  they  at  liberty  to  nt  with  in- 
difference in  any  assenibly,  where  the  interests  of  ano- 
ther Church  are  promoted.  If,  on  being  admitted  into 
Parliament,  they  were  to  act  according  to  their  prin- 
ciples, their  first  effort  should  be  to  abolish  the  Church 
of  England,  and  establish  the  Church  of  Rome.  1  do 
not  mean  to  blame  them  for  this  ;  but  I  blame  them  for 
denying  it.  Let  them  como  forward  as  Catholics — but 
let  them  come  as  Catholics  who  wish  to  be  consistent, 
and  let  them  candidly  declare,  that  their  principles  are 
such  as  io  require  the  overthrow  of  the  present  Church 
Establishment,  and  the  setting  up  of  their  own — and, 
then,  let  the  Legislature  judge  of  the  true  character  of 
their  claims. 

I  may  be  told,  that  the  Catholics  disavow  the  inten- 
tion which  I  have  laid  to  their  charge.  1  know  they 
disavow  it ;  and  I  know  also,  that  they  disavow  the 
principle  of  intolerant  religious  exclusion,  which  I 
have  ascribed  io  (heir  system  ; — but  how  istbedisavowal 
made  ?  It  is  made  by  individuals  who  have  no  authority 
to  make  it.  The  character  which  I  have  given  to 
Catholicity  has  been  drawn  for  it  in  the  Bulls  of  Popes, 
and  in  the  Canons  and  Decrees  of  Councils  ;  but  it  has 
been  disavowed  by  indixiduals  only^  or  by  bodies  of 
Laity  not  competent  to  make  such  disavowal,  or  by  un- 
authorised meetings  of  Clergymen,  equally  incompetent. 

The  claims  of  ancient  Catholicity  have  been  dexter- 
©usly  lowered,  or  raised,  according  to  the  spirit  and 


i 


II 


9 

circumstances   of  the   times  :    but  nothing   has   been 
changed.     All  has  been  reserved  for  future  exigencies* 
Every  one  will  admit,  that  the  obnoxious  and  intolerant 
principle  to  which  I  have  adverted,  is  to  be  found  in 
the  Bulls  of  Popes,  and  in  the  Canons  and  Decrees  of 
Councils;  and  yet,   1  am  certain  that  none  will  affirm, 
that,   authority  equally  competent,  has  been  employed 
to  disavow  it.     To  say  (hat   Individuals  do  so,  or  even 
bodies  of  individuals,  is  saying  nothing  to  the  purpose. 
If  any  man,  or  body  of  men,  the  subjects  of  this  realm, 
should  propose   entering   into  a  commercial  contract 
with  me,  which  an  Act  of  the  British  Parliament  had 
pronounced  to  be  illegal,  would  not  the  public  consider 
me  a  fool,  were  I  to  embark  my  whole  property  in  such 
a  contract,   merely  because  the  individuals  concerned 
had  said,  that  they  did  not  acknowledge  the  obligation 
of  the  Act  referred  to  ?  Would  I  not  act  more  consis- 
tently with  my  own  interests,  were  I  to  tell  them,  that 
however  promising  the  results  of  the  contract  might  be, 
considered  in  itself,  yet,  as  their  disavowal  of  the  law 
that  made  it  illegal,  would  be  of  no  avail  in  a  day  of 
trial,  I  could  not   enter  on  the  contract  until  that  law 
should  be  repealed  by  the  same  authority  by  which  it  ^ 
was  at  first  enacted?  Common  sense  would,  in  this  in- 
stance, approve  my  conduct.     1  would  act  the  same 
part  in  the  question  of  Catholic  Emancipation.     Let 
the  Church  of  Rome,  by  Bulls  of  Popes  and  Decrees 
of  Councils,  remove  from  her  standards  her  anathemas 


■   10 

njraiiist  those  Cliiirclies  which  clifTcr  from  her  ;— for. 
until  this  he  donfy  those  Constitutions  of  which  such 
Churches  form  a  part,  arc  bound  to  exclude  Catliolics 
from  such  a  participation  in  their  privileges,  as  might 
give   them  an  opportunity  of  doing  those  Churches  an 

injury. 

From  what  hai,  been  stated,  1  think  it  is  evident,  that 
no  Catholic  could  bold  a  place   in  any   Government, 
\\betber  Protestant,    Mahometan,   or    Pagan,   without 
feeling  it  bis  duty  to  use  bis  influence  for  the  aggran- 
dizement  of  his  own  religious  system  ;  and,  as  the  be- 
ginning and  the  end  of  that  system  ever  have  been,  as 
they  still  are,  ANATHEMA   and  monopoly,  every  Ca- 
tholic must,  on  having  it  in  his  power,  lay  his  fellow- 
subjects   under  civil  disabilities— nay,  and  uncitil  pe- 
nalties too— on  account  of  sentiments  p^/re/^  religious, 
nnless  these  sentiments  arc  in  unison  with  the  dogmas 
of  the  Vatican  ;  and,  as  this  would  be  a  violation  of 
the  principle  with  which  I  set  out,   it  lorms  the  ground 
of  a  strong  objection,  on  my  part,  to  Catholic  Eman- 
cipation. 

It  may  be  supposed,  that  I  intend  to  defend  the 
Established  Church,  and  that,  notwithstanding  my 
professed  independence,  I  am  still  arguing  under  the 
influence  of  system.  1  am  sure,  Sir,  that  though  you 
are  a  Churchman,  your  candour  will  bear  with  me 
while  1  reply  to  such  a  surmise  with  all  the  plainness 
of  a  consistent  Dissenter,  1  do  not  intend  to  defend  tho 


/     . 


i. 


u 

Church  of  England — were  this  my  intention,  I  would  be 
a  member  of  it,  but,  I  decidedly  prefer  living  under  a 
Constitution  with  which  the  Church  of  England  is  con- 
nected, to  living  under  one  willi  which  the  Church  of 
J{ome  migJit.be  connected.  1  dissent  from  the  Church 
of  England,  and  that  is  a  constitutional  mode  of 
expressing  my  disapprobation  of  its  principles; 
and,  were  1  a  member  of  the  British  Senate,  I  would 
move  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  Jiill  for  its  abolition— not, 
however,  io  establish  a  religious  system  of  my  own — 
for,  while  I  consider  it  the  duty  of  the  State  to  guard 
against  the  political  evils  of  every  religious  system,  I 
consider  it  to  be  quite  foreign  from  the  province  of 
civil  g-overnmcnt  to  provide  a  legal  establishment  for 
any.  I  have  made  these  observations,  to  remove  any 
-jilea  that  might  be  raised  against  my  arguments,  on  the 
ground  of  inconsistency. 

Permit  me  now,  to  direct  your  attention  to  a  se- 
cond general  principle,  on  which  I  feel  myself  fully 
warranted  to  take  the  negative  side  of  the  Catholic 
Question.  Itisthis — tue  majority,  in  eveiiycivil 

COMMUNITY,  HAS  A  RIGHT  TO  FORM  AND  MAINTAIN 
TJIfi  CONSTITUTION,  BY  WHICH  ALL  ARE  TO  BE 
GOVERNED. 

Whatever  evils  may,  in  particular  cases,  attend  the 
execution  of  this  principle,  it  is  the  admitted  f^ound a- 
tion  of  all  good  government  in  every  civilized  com- 
munity. The  principle  itself  requires  neither  ex- 
planation nor  defence  ;  I  shall,   therefore,  confine 


12 


13 


Hiyself  to  its  application  to  the  present  circumstances 

of  the  Catholics. 

The  principle  1  have  just  laid  down,  though  theo- 
retically  admitted,    has  been   practically  denied    by 
the  Calhoiics,   wherever  they    have  had   it  in  their 
power  to  violate  it.     Where  their  itifuence,  when  a 
minority,  has  exceeded  that  of  a  majority,  they  have 
uniformly  employed    it   in   direct  opposition  to  the 
equitable   principle  before  us.     This,   however,    is 
consistent  with  their  principles  as   Catholics.     Let 
me  instance  the    case   of  Rome.     What  was  it  that 
gave  the  Pope  the  supreme  temporal  dominion  in  the 
Capitol  ?    Was  it  not  the  violation  of  the  principle 
for  which  I  am  contending  ?    It  was  asserted,  that, 
by  a  pretended  right,  derived  from  St.  Peter,  a  mino- 
rity of  one  should  dictate  to  the  descendants  of  the 
ancient  Romans:  and,  to  give  weight  to  this  mino- 
rity, a  Conclave  of  Cardinals  were  added,  elected  by 
the    Pope,    and    returning  the    favour  by  electing 
him— thus   extinguishing  the  influence  of   the  many 
in  the  undue   preponderance   of  the  few,  and  com- 
pletely  destroying    the    maxim,    that    the  majority 
j>hould  dictate  for  all.     This  is  the  case  in  Rome  to 
<he  present  day,    and  will  continue  to  be  so  while 
that  City  is  the  Capital  of   Catholicity.     Some  will 
tell  me,    that   Rome  is  the  seat  of  a  temporal  Mo- 
narchy, and  perfectly  distinct  from  the  spiritual  cha- 
racter of  Catholicity;    but  I  must   deny  this.     The 


.'  i 


1 « 


?  >  r  -,- 


Pope  first  received  his  triple  Crown  by  a  spiritual 
title,  and  by  a  spiritual  title  he  still  holds  it,  and  will 
continue  so  to  hold  it,  until  the  competent  autho- 
rities change  h^'s  title — or,  in  other  words,  until  Ca- 
tholicity is  changed.  In  Rome,  then — and  let  it 
never  be  forgotten,  that  the  nature  of  every  plant  is 
best  know^n  when  it  is  examined  in  the  clime  that 
gave  it  birth — in  Rom©,  a  temporal  dominion  has 
been  established  on  rights  exclusively  spiritual,  and 
an  ambitious  Prelacy  has  exalted  itself  to  a  measure 
of  temporal  power,  not  inferior  to  that  for  which 
Caesar  lost  his  life.  To  subject  the  nations  to  the 
same  authority,  is  the  direct  tendency  of  Catholicity, 
and  the  man  who  denies  it  is  not  a  Catholic.  Let 
any  Catholic  shew  me  a  standard  document  of  his 
Church  that  contradicts  a  single  statement  1  have 
made,  and  I  will  retract  it ;  but,  until  he  does  so,  I 
must  deny  his  right  to  the  Emancipation  which  he 
claims,  as  I  consider  it  directly  calculated  to  subject 
the  rights  of  the  many  to  the  controul  of  the  few. 

I  miffht  have  carried  these  observations  farther; 
but  I  am  afraid  I  have  already  trespassed  on  your 
.  columns. — I  shall,  therefore,  conclude,  by  directing 
your  readers,  if  their  patience  will  follow  me,  to  one 
principle  in  addition  to  those  which  I  have  mention- 
ed already — and  that  is,   that  when  the  minority 

OF  ANY  COMMUNITY    PERSEVERE    IN  URGING  A  CLAIM 
WlHCU  THE    MAJORITY    HAVE    FOUND    IT    EXPEDIENT 


r■JJ^':^£^^i^AS&&':  ?4*Si^lil^:^.- 


14 

TO  DENY,  THE  MAJOUITY  SHOULD  EXERCISE  .\ 
WATCHFUL  JEriLOUSY  OVER  THE  MANNER  IN  WHICH 
SUCH    A    CLAIM   IS    PRESSED    BY    THE   MINORITY. 

1  have  already  observed,   that,  in  every  commu- 
nity,   the  majority  should    be  the  legislators  ;  but  I 
do   not   intend   to  say,    that  the   minority,  on  this 
account  should    be   denied  the  right  of  expressing 
their  dissent  in  every  constitutional  way  ;  nor  do  I 
intend,  even  to  insinuate,  that  they  should  not  peti- 
tion for    a   repeal  of  the  deed  of  the  majority — but, 
as  the  manner  in    which  the  minority  express  their 
disseut  and  present  their   petitions,  is  calculated  to 
throw  a  light  on   their  motives  and  views,  I  think  it 
is  the    duty  of  the  majority  to  watch  carefully  the 
spirit  and  conduct   displayed  in  the  petitions  or  re- 
monstrances of  the  minority.    Were  I  to  apply  these 
criteria  to    the   Catholics,  J  should   be  led  most  di- 
rectly to  a  refusal  of  their  claims.    In  their  petitions 
to    the    Legislature,   they    have   been     of    late    much 
milder  than  on  former  occasions  ;  but  in  their  pub- 
lic Meetings,    they  still  display  the    same   intempe- 
rance   of  language  and  sentiment  that   marked  the 
assemblies  of  their  fathers.     The  refusal  to  accede 
to  their  wishes,    has  been   ascribed  by  them,  at  their 
public  Meetings,  to  a  union   of  the  basest   motives 
that   ever    combined    to    sink   and   deteriorate   the 
character  of  the  most  abandoned  nations.     Venalitv, 
besottedness   of  principle,  persecution,  corruption 


15 

of  character,  tyranny,  and  contempt  of  the  just 
rights  of  the  subject,  lorm  the  black  catalogue  of 
crimp,  with  which  the  great  mass  of  the  British  em- 
plie  are  charged  at  the  meetings  of  Catholics,  where 
these  epithets  are  received  by  the  grazing  multitude 
with  thunders  of  applause.  I  speak  not  from  report. 
I  speak  of  what  I  have  seen  and  heard  over  and  over 
again ;  nay,  1  speak  of  the  general  temper  and  conduct 
of  Irish  Catholics,  as  displayed  in  their  speeches,  their 
pamphlets,  their  public  meetings,  and  their  private 
conversation. 

Now,  Sir,  when  the  Catholics — a  minority,  small, 
indeed,  when  compared  with  the  population  of  this 
great  Empire — when  the  Catholics  address  such  lan- 
guage as  this  to  the  respectable  majority  who  oppose 
their  claims — for  there  is  still  a  vast  majority  in  the 
reabn  against  thcra — when,  I  say,  they  address  such 
language  as  this  to  them,  they  deserve  not  the  privileges 
which  they  so  arrogantly  claim. 

I  might  have  added  many  other  observations,  for  the 
subject  is  capable  of  the  most  ample  discussion ;  but, 
lest  I  should  trespass  too  long  upon  your  patience,  I 
shall  conclude,  by  expressing  my  wish,  that  the  Catho- 
lics would  turn  their  attention  to  another  subject  as  a 
preliminary  to  Emancipation.  Let  thern  direct  their 
petitions  to  the  Vatican^  before  they  address  them  to 
London.  Let  them  pray  their  Holy  Father  to  convene 
a  General  Council,   the   only  authority  univcrsalli/  al- 


16 

lowed  to  be  competent,  and  let  that  Council  repeal  (he 
principles  so  often  made  the  subject  of  complaint. 

Let  that  Council  disavow  what  Catholics,  in  many 
instances,  disavow  as  individuals  ;  and  then  let  (heir 
claims  appear  at  the  throne  of  a  Protestant  Monarch, 
sworn  to  defend  the  principles  which  Catholicity,  in  i(s 
present  form,  is  direcdy  calculated  to  undermine. 

Should  his  Holiness  refuse  this,  I  would  remind  the 
Catholics,  that  (he  hindrance  to  their  Emancipation 
is  no  longer  in  England,  but  in  Rome ;  and,  in  that  case, 
1  should  leave  it  with  themselves' to  determine  what 
steps  it  would  be  most  proper  to  take,  in  order  to  accom- 
plish  the  object  of  their  wishes. 

I  am  yours,  &c. 

CANDIDUS. 


y      i 


17 

TO  THE    EDITOR  OF   THE  DUBLIN  CORRESPONDENT. 
SIR, 

In  takincr  np  my  pen  to  address  you  a  second  time  on 
the  merits  of  the  Catholic  Ques(ion,  I  should  apologize 
for  thus  intruding  on  your  columns,  did  not  (he  vast 
imporfarjce  of  the  subject  afford  a  sufficient  plea  for  my 
solicitude. 

In  my  last  1  took  a  view  of  the  great  outlines  of 
Catholicity,  considered  in  (heir  general  influence  on 
civil  society,  and  I  endeavoured  to  apply  (he  remarks 
which  I  (hen  made  to  (he  present  circumstances  of 
Roman  Catholics  in  this  country  ;  but  it  afterwards 
occured  to  me,  that  the  general  line  of  remark  which  I 
had  adopted  would  be  incomplete,  without  the  addition 
of  a  more  minute  and  particular  view  of  the  subject. 

In  attempting  this,  the  first  point  of  inquiry  that  pre- 
sents itself  to  our  attention  is,  the  real  amount  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  (laims.     We  are  often  told  that  the 
Roman  Catholics  require  nothing  but  civil  liberty;  and 
were  this  really  the  case,  justice  would  support  their 
claim,  and,  in  this  age  of  freedom,  no  degree  of  power 
or  iiifltience  could  successfully  oppose  its  being  granted  ; 
but  liberty  h  not  the  object  of  Roman  Catholic  impor- 
tunity-forthaf,  the  Roman  Catholics  have  in  a  perfect 
equality   with   (he   Protestants.       Their   object   is   not 
liberlij,  but  privilege.     These  have  always  been  viewed 
as  differing  most  materially  from  each  other.     Liberty, 
in  every  well-organised  community,  belongs  to  all,  if  it 


18 


J9 


is  not  forfeited  by  crime  ;  but  prnilcgt  belongs  only  to 
those,  in  whose  hands  it  is  not  likely  to  prove  injurious. 
While  liberty,  therefore,  is  enjoyed  by  all,  privilege  is 
justly  restricted  ;  and  that,  too,  for  the  express  purpose 
of  securing  the  general  enjoyment  of  liberty ;  for  if 
privilege  had  no  limits,  while  human  nature  is  imper- 
fect, it  would  frequently  fall  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
would  abuse  it  to  the  prejudices  of  liberty.  From  these 
premises  it  is  evident,  that  the  denial  of  privilege  to 
any  individual,  does  not  deprive  him  of  liberty;  and 
consequently,  the  Roman  Catholics,  in  suing  for  pri- 
vilege, fall  into  a  gross  misnomer  of  their  claim,  where 
they  call  it  a  plea  for  civil  liberty.  This  error  is,  1 
fear,  wilful,  and  therefore,  1  need  not  expect  that  1  may 
be  the  means  of  correcting  it ;  but  that  will  not  prevent 
me  from  exposing  it,  that  those  who  are  not  yet  misled 
by  it,  may  guard  against  it.  The  lioman  Catholics 
know  that  the  cry  of  slavery  is  more  likely  to  interest 
public  feeling  in  their  favour,  than  any  sober  address  io 
the  understanding  of  the  Empire.  Many  will  respond 
to  their  plea,  when  they  sue  for  liberty  and  emanci- 
pation, who  would  protest  against  their  claims,  were 
they  urged  under  the  honester,  but  less  imposing  names, 
of  power  and  privilege. 

These,  however,  are  the  epithets  under  which  the 
Roman  Catholic  ought  to  press  his  demands ;  and 
should  he  find  it  his  policy  to  decline  the  use  of  them 
for  others  more  imposing,  let  not  the  public  be  deceived 
by  so  weak  an  artifice. 


Roman  Catholics  will  tell  me,  that  if  the  question 
were  to  be  viewed  as  one  of  power  and  privilege,  and 
not  of  liberty  and  emancipation,  still,  justice  requires 
that  they  should  not  be  excluded  from  either  power  or 
privilege,  while  Protestants  are  admitted  to  both. 

To  this  I  would  reply,  that,  the  connexion  between 
Roman  Catholics  and  a  foreign  Prince,  makes  a  striking 
difference  between  them  and  Protestants.  The  Roman 
Catholics  acknowledge  the  authority  of  a  foreign  Po- 
tentate, but  the  Protestants  acknowledge  no  power 
whatever,  beyond  the  precincts  of  British  authority. 

The  whole  force  of  this  reply  is  supposed  io  be  over- 
thrown,  by  the  readiness  with  which  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic comes  forward  to  disavow  all  temporal  authority, 
on  the  part  of  the  Pope,  over  the  subjects  of  other 
Princes  ;  but  as  the  Church  of  Rome  has  always  been 
notorious  for  her  sophistry,  we  must  not  admit  the 
arguments  of  any  of  her  children,  without  due  exami- 
nation. When  ihe  Irish  Roman  Catholic  asserts  his 
conviction,  that  the  Pope  has  no  temporal  power  over 
the  subjects  of  other  Sovereigns,  he  wishes  you  to  be* 
lieve,  that  he  has  avowed  a  doctrine  that  decidedly 
disclaims  all  the  assuming  usurpations  which  have  dis- 
graced the  annals  of  the  Pontificate ;  but  this  is  all 
delusion  ;  the  same  doctrine  was  always  maintained  by 
the  Romish  Church.  She  never  asserted  foreign  tempo- 
ral dominion  to  be  any  part  of  her  constitution, — When 
her  haughty  Pontiffs    were   employed  in   dethrouipg 


20 


21 


Sovereigns,  alienating  subjects,  and  dissolving  consti- 
tutions, formed  by  the  wisdom  of  ages,  and  consolidat- 
ed by  the  loyalty  of  an  affectionate  anil  devoted  people, 
they    were    neither  claiming   nor   exercising  temporal 
power.     These  arrogant  assumptions  of    power  were 
only  acts  of  spiritual  chastisement,  exercised  by  a  5/;///- 
tual  father  to v\ aids  the  enemies  of  his  spiritual  chil- 
dren ;  and   even  in   the  mode  in  which  these  chastise- 
ments were  administered,  we  can  discover  nothing  but 
what  is  purely  spiritual.     Spitiiual  Bulls    were  read 
by  5/7f/77z/fl/ ecclesiastics  to  their  spiritual  children  a. 
their  spiritual  assemblies,   when  spiritual  indignation 
burst  forth,  under  5p/n7i^a/ approbation,  from  spiritual 
Superiors,  until  the  best  members  and  the  noblest  insti- 
tution of  society  fell  a  prey  to  its  fury. 

I  am  not  attempting  to  ridicule  the  individuals  whose 
sentiments  I  oppose.  No  Sir,  I  am  serious  ;  and  I  chal- 
lenge any  Roman  Catholic  to  point  out  to  me  a  single 

Bull,  Brief,    Rescript,    Canon,   or   Decree,   connected 
with    the  usurpations  of  authority   to   which   1    have 

alluded,  which  does  not  directly  assert  that  these  usurp- 
ations are  acts  of  spirital  jurisdiction. 

If  then  a  Roman  Catholic  should  tell  me,  that  the 
Pope's  power  is  purely  spiritual;  and  if  I  am  to  interpret 
his  words,  by  the  usage  of  his  own  Church,  from  the 
first  period  of  its  ascendancy  to  the  present  moment ^ 
1  understand  that  his  declaration  admits  of  as  £;reat  a 
latitude  of  temporal  assumption,  as  ever  distinguished 


i\ 


.    •    » 


/      9 

4 


the  tyranny  of  Napoleon.     1  do  not  mean  to  sny,  that 
the    Roman  Catholic  who  makes  the  declaration  which 
I   have  been  considering,   intends    to   deceive ;  but  I 
ranst  remind  him,  that,  while  he  professes  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  is  not  at  liberty  to  make 
any  declaration  contrary  to   her  l^ws ;  and,  in  the  in- 
stance  before  us,  these  are  decidedly  against  him— for, 
while  he  professes  to  disclaim  the  past  iniquities  of  his 
Church,  and  promises  that  they  shall  not  be  repeated 
she  tells  him,  that  they  are  acts  of  her  spiritual  autho- 
lity,  and  that,  as  she  has  never  repealed  the  laws,  nor 
disavowed  the  principles  on  which  these  acts  were  per- 
formed, she  is  at  liberty  to  repeat  them,  when  circum- 
stances offer  a  fair  opportunity.     Whether  in  this  case 
the  Church,  or  her  individual  members,   should  be  be- 
lieved, let  the  public  determine. 

There  is  another  point  connected  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  Question,  to  which  I  shall  next  direct  your 
attention,  and  that  is,  the  leading  principle  on  which 
the  Roman  Catholics  ground  their  claims  for  power  and 
privilege.  The  principle  to  which  I  refer  is,  (he  prin- 
ciple of  equality  of  right.  We  are  constantly  told  by 
the  Roman  Catholics,  that,  as  they  contribute  to  the 
support  of  the  State  equally  with  Protestants,  they 
have  an  equal  right  to  its  privileges.  So  far  as  contri- 
buting to  the  support  of  the  State  confers  a  right  to  its 
privileges,  the  Roman  Catholics  certainly  have  a  right 
to  a  participation  of  these  privileges  ;  and  were  there 


no  countcraciiog  disqualifications,  fhat  right  would  b« 
inalienable — but,  as  counteracting  disqualifications  do 
exist  on  the  part  of  Roman  Catholics,  their  right  is 
suspended.  But  its  existence  is  by  no  means  denied, 
though  a  just  and  wise  policy  has  prohibited  its  exer- 
cise. 

But,  if  it  were  granted  that  the  Roman  Catholics 
have  not  only  a  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  that  that  right  should  also  be  exercised  by 
them — and  this  is  what  they  demand—  why  do  they  not 
preserve  consistency  in  stating  their  claim  ? 

There  is  one  privilege  which  they  have  studiously 
thrown  in  the  back  ground  in  making  their  complaint. 
They  have  never  ventured  to  claim  a  place  in  the 
spiritual  Peerage  of  the  realm  for  their  Hierarchy. 
Is  this  following  up  their  plea  of  equality  of  privi- 
lege? They  may  tell  me,  that  that  privilege  is  re- 
served by  the  Constitution  for  the  Hierarchy  of  the 
Church  of  England  ;  but  on  their  own  principle  of 
equality  of  privilege,  which  is  the  very  foundation 
of  their  claims,  why  would  they  allow  a  reserve  in 
the  House  of  Lords,  which  they  cannot  endure  in 
the  House  of  Commons  ?  Is  it  not  the  same  constitu- 
tion which  has,  according  to  Roman  Catholics 
unjustly  and  oppressively  reserved  the  privilege  of 
sitting  in  the  House  of  Commons  for  Protestants, 
which  they  say  they  will  gladly  support,  in  reserving 
the  privilege  of  sitting  on  the  spiritual  benches  of 


i 


)* 


/ 
1 


23 

the  Peerage  for  the  Bishops  of  the  Church  of 
England  ?  Where  is  consistency  here  ?  I  confess  I 
cannot  see  it. 

In  short,  the  Roman  Catholics  should  cither  take 
in  the  rights  of  (heir  Bishops  into  the  principle  of 
their  complaints,  or  relinquish  the  plea  of  equality 
of  privilege,  and  seek  new  ground  for  their  claims. 
"I  know  of  no  principle  on  which  1  could  grant  the 
Roman  Catholics  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
which  would  not  require  a  similar  privilege  for  their 
Bishops  in  the  House  of  Lords.  A  place  in  the 
Peerage  for  their  Bishops  is,  perhaps,  too  much  for 
Roman  Catholics  to  require  at  present ;  but  I  cannot 
avoid  concluding  that  this  must  be  the  subject  of  a 
future  demand. 

There  is  another  imposing  argument  often  em- 
ployed  by  Roman  Catholics,  when  discussing  the 
merits  of  their  claims.  We  are  told  that  there  never 
can  be  an  equitable  representation  of  the  country, 
until  they  are  admitted  into  Parliament.  We  are 
told  that  three-fourths  of  the  population  of  Ireland 
have  no  representative  in  the  Legislature  while 
Roman  Catholics  are  excluded. 

Here  I  would  remark,  that  there  are  two  kinds  of  re- 
presentation—that which  represents  the  people,  who,  in 
this  country,  are  Chiefly  Roman  Catholics ;  and  that 
which  represents  the  property,  which,  in  this  instance, 
belongs  chiefly  to   Protesfant^.     Now,  a  fair  represent 


21 

tation  of  the  country  would  secure  at  (he  same  time,  the 
rights  of  the  people  and  the  interests  of  property.  The 
question  then  is,  will  these  two  objects  be  more  effectu- 
ally accomplished  by  a  Roman  Catholic  than  by  a 
Protestant  representation  ?  The  Roman  Catholics  will 
sav,  that  it  is  not  their  intention  to  exclude  the  Protes- 
tants  from  the  representation  of  the  country  ;  but,  where 
the  mass  of  the  people  are  Roman  Catholics,  this  must 
ultimately  be  the  case.  If  there  are  many  in  that  body 
who  are  not  qualified  to  vote  at  elections,  it  would  not 
be  difficult,  on  the  principles  of  the  present  Election 
Laws,  to  qualify  them  ;  and,  in  that  case,  the  country 
would  soon  become  decidedly  Roman  Catholic  in  its 
Representatives.  In  the  event  of  such  an  occurrence, 
the  country  would  be  much  more  partially  represented 
than  it  is  at  present ;  for,  though  Protestants  could  le- 
gislate with  impartiality,  even  for  Mahometans  or 
Hindoos,  yet,  such  is  the  known  character  of  Catho- 
licity, that  its  conscientious  votaries  cannot  look  with 
complacency  on  any  who  are  not  wiihin  the  pale  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.  If  1  am  wrong  in  this,  let  the  Roman 
Catholic  show  me  any  standard  document  of  his 
Church,  that  recognizes  the  face  of  a  Christian  in  any 
individual  who  is  not  of  his  community,  and  I  am  satis- 
fied. I  must,  therefore,  insist,  that  Protestants  are 
better  calculated  to  represent  the  country  than  Roman 
Catholics,  as  they  can  do  more  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
population,   than  the  Roman    Catholic  representative 


i 


A 


.  '^V 


? 


25 

could,  in  his  conscience,   do  for  the  Protestant  pro- 
perty of  the  kingdom. 

In  order  to  obtain  popularity  for  the  claims  of  Ro- 
man Catholics,  all  ranks  of  the  community  have  been 
taught  to  expect  the  highest  and  most  important  advan- 
tages from  their  being  granted  ;  but  these  boasted  ad- 
vantages 1  have  never  been  able  to  foresee.  The  mea- 
sure cannot  possibly  affect  the  lower  orders  of  Roman 

Catholics,  unless  we  are  to  suppose  one  of  two  things 

and,  to  suppose  either  the  one  or  the  other,  would  be 
to  injure  the  merits  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Question. 
We  must  suppose  either,  that  Protestants  are  incapable 
of  doing  justice  to  their  Roman  Catholic  countrymen, 
or  that,  should  Roman  Catholics  be  admitted  into  Par- 
liament, they  intend  to  use  their  newly  acquired 
privileges  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  religious 
changes.  If  we  suppose  the  first — namely,  that  a 
Protestant  Legislature  cannot  do  justice  to  Roman 
Catholics,  tliough  the  Protestant  religion  has  nothing 
of  the  anethematizing  spirit  of  Catholicity,  what  shall 
we  say  of  a  Roman  Catholic  Legislature,  under  the 
unrestrained  influence  of  the  comminating  bigotry  of 
the  Church  of  Rome?  Would  they  be  more  likely  to  act 
with  equity  towards  Protestants,  than  Protestants  are  to 
administer  justice  to  Roman  Catholics?  Were  we  to 
suppose  the  second— namely,  that  Roman  Catholics 
intend  to  effect  religious  changes  in  favour  of  their 
own. system,   this  would  overthrow  their  claims  for 


26 

ever  ;  and  yet,  if  we  do  not  take  one  of  these  iw0 
things  for  granted,  no  advantage  Can  ever  be  antici- 
pated from  the  granting  of  their  claims.     To  say  that 
union  in  the  country  would  be  the  effect  of  the  mea- 
sure, is  delusive  in  the  extreme.     Instead  of  union, 
I  am  convinced  that  division  would  be  the  result; 
as  there  would  be  endless  contests  between  the  num- 
bers of  the  Roman  Catholics  and  the  influence  and 
property  of  theProtestants,  in  order  to  secure  a  predo- 
minant interest  in  the  representation  of  the  country. 
It  has  been  said,  that  the  Roman  Catholics  never  could 
return  a  majority  of  their  community  to  the  Imperi- 
c^  Parliament;  but  that  is  a  point  which  futurity  alone 
can  determine.     Certain  it  is,    that  they  could  and 
zsould  return  a  majority  in  the  Irish  representation ; 
and  that  would  be  found  sufficient  to  keep   both  the 
Parliament  and  the  country  in  a  state  of  continual  dis- 
quietude, if  it  might  not,  in  the  end,  effect  many  in- 
jurious changes. 

The  dang:er  of  unqualified  emancipation  is  not 
greater,  when  viewed  in  connexion  with  legislation, 
than  when  we  consider  it  in  connexion  with  the  Ex- 
ecutive Government  of  the  country.  By  granting 
what  the  Roman  Catholics  require,  they  will  obtain 
admission  to  all  the  offices  of  the  Executive 
Government,  at  least  they  will  be  eligible  to  them  : 
and  I  have  no  doubt  they  will  make  every  use  of 
their   eligibility  in   order   to  obtain  the   offices  to 


/' 


iiti 


ii 


iff 


I 

I. 


fe- 


27 

which  it  leads.  This  is  very  natural ;  and,  were  the 
Roman  Catholic  claims  granted,  1  think  their  desire 
of  office  would  be  very  proper  ;  but,  let  us  consider 
for  a  moment,  what  the  result  must  be,  were  this 
desire  accomplished.  Were  the  Lord  ChancMlor  a 
Roman  Catholic,  what  would  be  the  consequence  of 
such  an  appointment?  This  may  be  ascertained  by 
considering  the  vast  amount  of  authority  connected 
with  the  office. 

The  Chancellor  is  an  Officer  of  the  highest  autho- 
rity in  the  Empire.  He  takes  precedence  of  every 
temporal  Lord,  and  is,  ex  officio^  a  Privy  Counsellor, 
and,  by  prescription,  Prolocutor  of  the  House  of 
Lords.  He  has  the  appointment  of  all  Magistrates, 
and  is  the  guardian  of  all  Minors,  as  well  as  the 
visitor  of  all  public  Institutions  ;  besides  his  official 
jurisdiction  in  the  Court  of  Chancery. 

Now,  if  this  great  officer  were  a  Roman  Catholic,  all 
his  authority  must,  of  course,  be  employed  to  promote 
the  interests  of  Catholicity. 

We  should  then  have  Roman  Catholic  Magistrates 

Roman  Catholic  Guardians,  appointed  to  rear  our  PrO" 
testant  Minors  for  the  Church  of  Rome— besides  hav- 
ing our  national  councils  and  the  decisions  in  Chan- 
cery biassed,  if  not  carried  by  Roman  Catholic  influ- 
ence. 

I  may  be  told,  that  the  Chancellor  would  always 
prove   himself  a  man    of  principle,   and   therefore, 


2S 


29 


be   incapable  of  acting  thus.     But  I  could  not  con 
sider  him  a  man  of  principle  if  he  did  not  act  thus. 
It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the   Church  of  Rome 
has  always  maintained,  that  no   human  being,  who 
dies  without   the  pale  of  her  communion,  ever  can 
obtain  a  place  in  the  upper  sanctuary.     Should  Ro- 
man Catholics  pretend  to  deny  this,  or,  rather  should 
they  attempt  to  conceal  it,  1  refer  agjiin  to  the  test, 
the  standard  documents  of  their  own  Church,  and, 
if  any  one   of   these   is  found  to  deny  what  I  here 
assert,  1   shall    retract   my  assertion.     Since,   then, 
this  is  the  doctrine   of  the   Church  of  Rome,  what 
should  we  expect  from  a  Roman  Catholic  Chancellor 
of  principle?    As  he  is  termed  the  keeper   of  the 
King's  conscience,  could  we  suppose  he  would   ad- 
minister Protestant  advice  to  his  Master,   while  he 
knew  that   Protestant   principles  form  the  soul  of 
the  man  who  maintains  them  for  endless  perdition  ? 
In  the  appointment  of  guardians  for  our  Protestant 
Minors,  would  he  appoint  for  the  infant  in  question, 
a  Protestant,   who    would    rear   him  a  fire-brand  of 
hell,  in  preference  to  a  Roman  Catholic,  who  would 
rear  him  an  heir  of  glory  ?    In  the  appointment  of 
Magistrates,    would    he    appoint    Protestants,    who 
.would  maintain  and  promote  the  kingdom  ot  Satan, 
in  preference  to  Roman   Catholics,  who   would   ad- 
vance  and  vindicate  the  interest  of  the  kingdom  of 
God? 


/' 


Mi- 


"lis*' 


fix 


'if: 


'V  «'' 


V 


I  think  it  is  easy  to  ascertain  how  a  Catholic 
Chancellor  of  principle  would  act  in  these  cases. 
He  would  do  every  thing  within  the  sphere  of  his 
influence  and  authority  to  promote  the  cause  of 
Catholicity,  and  in  doing  so,  I  am  certain  he  would 
do  what  he  conceived  to  be  right ;  he  would  prove 
his  determination  to  act  from  principle,  but,  he  would 
at  the  same  time,  prove  that  hp  was  unfit  to  be  the 
highest  officer  under  a  Protestant  Crown.  When 
Popery  prevailed  in  the  British  Empire,  the  Roman 
Catholics  were  well  aware  of  the  importance  ot  the 
Chancellorship,  and,  consequently,  they  so  ordered 
matters,  that  the  Lord  Chancellor  was  usually  an  Ec' 
clesiastic. 

The  remarks  I  have  made  on  the  office  of  Chancel- 
lor, will  apply,  with  equal  force,  to  offices  in  the  infe- 
rior Courts  of  the  Empire — such  as  the  Chief  Justices 
of  the  Courts  of  King's  Bench  and  Common  Pleas, 
each  of  which  has  an  extensive  jurisdiction.     But  lest 

1  should  be  tedious,  I  shall  leave  those   concerned   to 
specify,  more  particularly,  the  influence  which  Roman 

Catholic  emancipation  would  be  likely  to  exercise  over 

these  invaluable  bulwarks  of  British  jurisprudence.     I 

shall   only  observe,  that  the  man  who  would  commit 

these  offices  of  trust  and  authority  into  the  hands  of 

Roman  Catholics,  is  cither  blind  to  the  true  interests  of 

his  country,  or  willing  to  betray  them  into  hands  where 

tbev  cannot  be  safe. 


( 


so 

The  last  objection  which  I  shall  mention  to  the  full 
emancipation  of  Roman  Catholics,  is  founded  on  the 
solemn  national  compact,  by  which  the  Crown  is  se- 
cured to  a  succession  of  Protectant  Kings. 

The  Coronation  oalh  is  so  explicit  in  support  of  the 
present  order  of  things  in  the  Ecclesiastical  part  ol  the 
Constitution,  that  I  cannot  conceive  how  any  British 
Monarch  can  consent  to  admit  into  his  councils  any 
body  of  men  connectt^d  with  the  sec  of  Rome. 

The  oath  referred  to  is,  in  one  part,  *as  follows  :— 
"  I  will,  to  the  utmost  of  m^j  poxcer^  maintain  the 
Protestant  Religion,  as  by  law  established ;  and  preserve 
to  the  Bishops  and  Clergy  and  the  Churches  consigned 
to  their  care,  all  such  rights  and  privileges  as  by  law  do 
or  shall  appertain  to  them,  or  any  of  them."  This 
oath  was  solemnly  confirmed,  and  its  object  more  ex- 
plicitly defined,  by  the  Act  of  Union  between  England 
and  Scotland.  It  was  ratified,  also  a  second  time,  by 
the  Act  of  Union  between  Great  Britam  and  Ireland.— 
Now,  can  it  be  said  that  the  King  is  fulfilling  these 
<rreat  national  compacts,  on  the  terms  of  his  own  oath 
by  which  these  compacts  became  the  pillars  of  his 
Throne,  when  he  is  opening  ttie  gates  of  the  Constitu- 
tion to  the  members  of  a  community,  whose  every  reli- 
gious principle  is  wrought  up  into  sworn  enmity  to  the 
Church,  which  the  compacts  alluded  to  were  framed  to 
support. 


•A 

;^4 

.  1  ,*■      ' 

, 

A> 

.v" 

' 

- 

','?-'-- 


^ 


'iS.<'f.'- 


."peg*- 


31 

The  facility  with  which  the  Roman  Catholics  dispense 
with  all  these  documents  now,  affords  a  specimen  of 
what  will  be  their  conduct  hereafter,  with  regard  to 
other  documents,  not  less  solemn  in  their  ratification,  or 
less  important  in  their  character,  should  they  obtain  the 
object  of  their  present  wishes. 

While  Roman  Catholics,  therefore,  submit  their  eon- 
sciences  to  a  foreign  Power,  and  form  their  principles, 
whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  under  the  influence  of  a 
foreign  Court,  I  cannot  «ee  how  the  the  British  Monarch 
can,  consistently  either  with  the  religious  or  political 
principles  of  the  Constitution,  admit  them  to  a  full  par- 
ticipation of  the  powers  and  priyileges  of  the  State. — I 
have  expressed  myself  the  more  decidedly  on  this  sub- 
ject, because  I  conceive  the  maintenance  of  the  British 
Constitution  (o  be  immediately  connected  with  the  safety 
of  Europe.  As  the  constitution  now  stands,  we  have 
seen  the  effects  which  its  energies,  when  called  forth, 
are  fitted  to  produce.  Jfc-bas  maintained  the  balance 
of  power  in  Europe,  and  given  peace  to  the  world. 
Whatever,  therefore,  could  either  directly  or  indirectly 
tend  to  its  dismemberment  should  be  made  an  object  of 
watchful  jealousy. 

As  it  is  not  my  intention  io  trouble  your  readers  with 
any  observations  on  this  important  subject  in  future,  I 
cannot  conclude  without  assuring  you,  that  the  remarks 
J  have  made  have  not  been  directed  by  a  spirit  of  anti- 
pathy to  Roman  Catholics.     1  wish  them  every  personal 


32 


•wr 


33 


and  relative  prosperity,  and  so  far  as  the  security  of  the 
Glorious  Constitution,  under  which  1  have  the  happi- 
ness to  live,  can  be  maintained,  1  wish  ihcm  the  enjoy- 
ment of  every  political  privilege  ;  but  so  long  as  I 
view  their  religious  principles  in  the  lii^ht  in  vvhich 
they  have  always  appeared  to  me,  I  must  raise  my 
voice,  however  feeble,  against  their  holding  the  reins  of 
a  Protestant  Government.  While  their  religion  is  the 
offspring  of  the  Vatican,  I  could  never  repose  with  con- 
fidence under  their  authority.  But,  could  I  direct  the 
Roman  Catholic  to  the  Scriptures,  I  would  there  shew 
him  a  religion  that  would  remove  all  my  suspicions— a 
religion,  divine  in  its  origin,  simple  in  its  doctrines, 
inoffensive  in  its  precepts,  sublime  in  its  prospects,  and 
diffusinsT,  by  its  moral  influence,  the  spirit  of  a  most 
endearing  philantrophy. 

I  would  not  direct  him  to  Home  ;  but  1  would  lead 
him  to  Jerusalem,  and  there,  on  the  top  of  Calvary,  I 
would  solicit  his  attention,  not  to  the  thunder  of  the 
Vatican  announcing  its  anathemas,  but  to  the  dying 
attestation  of  the  Piince  of  Peace,  proclaiming  the  recon- 
ciliation  of  the  guilty  by  the  merits  of  his  blood.  I 
would  invite  him  to  listen,  while  the  expiring  thief  pre- 
sents his  petition,"  Lord,  remember  me,  when  thou 
comest  to  thy  kingdom,"  and  while  the  Redeemer  re- 
turns  his  gracious  response/' This  day  shalt  thou  be 
with  me  in  Paradise." 


■S«s- 


The  Saviour's  testimony  was  a  proclaraatron  of  his 
own  transcendant  merits,  as  the  only  refuge  of  the 
guilty  ;  the  thief's  religion  was  a  believing  reception  of 
the  testimony  proclaimed. — What  a  contrast  is  this  to 
the  complex  policy,  to  the  worldly  wisdom  of  Catho- 
licity ! 

Let  the  Church  of  Rome  again  resume  her  former 
arrogance  ;  let  her  once  more  draw  the  sword  which 
she  has  so  often  bathed  in  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  ; 
let  her  rekindle  her  ancient  fires,  let  her  recall  her 
miraculous  powers,  and  rouse  the  shades  of  the  victims 
she  has  immolated,  to  sing  the  glories  of  her  triumphs ; 
let  her  multiply  her  altars  as  the  stars  of  Heaven,  and 
her  worshippers  as  the  sand  on  the  sea  shore  ;  let  her 
clothe  her  Pontiff  with  the  majesty  of  the  earth,  and 
build  his  throne  on  the  graves  of  his  enemies  ;  and  let 
her  bring  the  record  of  such  a  series  of  wonders,  written 
with  a  pen  from  the  wing  of  a  Seraph,  to  the  dying 
bed  of  a  man,  before  whom  the  awful  glory  and  near 
approach  of  eternity  have  eclipsed  all  the  attractions 
of  time — what  consolation  could  such  a  document  then 
inspire  ?  A  potent  Church,  a  dignifieil  Priesthood,  and 
a  splendid  ritual,  maj^  form  the  basis  of  a  delusive  con- 
fidence in  time,  but  their  importance  vanishes  on  the 
advance  of  eternity.  I  shall  conclude  by  exhorting 
both  your  Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  readers  io 
rise  above  the  outworks  of  a  religious  protession,  and  to 
take  a  glimpse  of  the  glory  that  dwells  within  the  veil 


Ibimcreens  eteroity  irom  time,  where  the  Lamb  that 
was  slain  pleads  the  merits  of  his  work,  without  which 
a  profession  of  religion  will  be  as  unavailing  in  eternity 
as  it  is  vain  in  time.  When  Roman  Catholics  can 
take  this  simple,  but  saving  view,  of  ihe  Gospel  of 
Christ,  1  shall  not  only  rejoice  at  their  admission  to 
privilege,  and  their  elevation  to  power,  but  I  shall  con- 
sider the  Monarch  happy,  and  the  Throoe  invincible. 

I  am  your's, 

CANDIDUS. 


•^ 


m.TXTY,  rRINTERjCORK. 


^^Ifii 


I 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


1010655867 


Tbte   book   is   due   two   weeks    f^^ym    the    last   ''  * 


c^-^k,-^'^- 


Q.  a^lb  ''i' 


^.^^^V"*^ 


!5 


^___— — — —        '>——.-  i.« 


'         I  P^^ 


uov 


<^^^y(ie 


